Webbo Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 It was a Labour idea and the Tories were dead against it. I'm not supporting this because it's a Tory or a Labour idea. I don't know if it will have any effect on these fat spotty virgins. I saw a woman on TV yesterday who was having her life systematically destroyed by (probably) a total stranger, for no other reason than she stood up to him/her online. Why should she have to put up with that?
MooseBreath Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 So what do you say to the victims of cyber stalking? Potential threat: real life stalking Equivalent solution: government has the right to track and record every movement and action of every member of the population using mics, cameras and GPS devices implanted into peoples heads and also CCTV/microphones covering every inch of the country. Do you support the above? If not, what do you say to victims of real life stalking?
davieG Posted 15 June 2012 Author Posted 15 June 2012 I'm not supporting this because it's a Tory or a Labour idea. I don't know if it will have any effect on these fat spotty virgins. I saw a woman on TV yesterday who was having her life systematically destroyed by (probably) a total stranger, for no other reason than she stood up to him/her online. Why should she have to put up with that? So why can't the police get a court order to monitor that particular event like they do with phone tapping, I'm sure there's ways of identifying the culprits already, Why do they need to monitor everyone to catch a few?
Webbo Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 Potential threat: real life stalking Equivalent solution: government has the right to track and record every movement and action of every member of the population using mics, cameras and GPS devices implanted into peoples heads and also CCTV/microphones covering every inch of the country. Do you support the above? If not, what do you say to victims of real life stalking? Bit silly? Real life stalkers can be seen and identified to the police.
Webbo Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 So why can't the police get a court order to monitor that particular event like they do with phone tapping, I'm sure there's ways of identifying the culprits already, Why do they need to monitor everyone to catch a few? Your post. BBC Websites will soon to be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online. New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles. The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed. Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her. Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook. Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them. The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, will make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said. Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim. End to 'scurrilous rumour' Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence. This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly. "Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke. "But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material. "Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant." Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment. "The government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online can't be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators. "It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk." Doesn't say anything about monitoring everyone.
Rincewind Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 Yes by the raincoats they wear. Same way burglars can be spotted by stripy jumpers and sacks with SWAG written on them.
Webbo Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 Yes by the raincoats they wear. Same way burglars can be spotted by stripy jumpers and sacks with SWAG written on them. And the fact they are hounding and pestering their victims.
davieG Posted 15 June 2012 Author Posted 15 June 2012 BBC Civil liberty groups and ISPs have voiced concerns over the newly-published draft communications bill. The controversial bill extends the type of data that internet service providers must keep. The government said that updated legislation to take account of new technology was vital in the fight against criminals and terrorists. But activists have dubbed it a snooper's charter. "This is all about giving the police unsupervised access to data. It is shocking for a government that opposed Labour's plans on this to propose virtually the same thing," said Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group. "It will cost billions of pounds and will end up only catching the stupid or the innocent. Terrorists will circumvent it." Publishing the bill, Home Secretary Theresa May said: "Communications data saves lives. It is a vital tool for the police to catch criminals and to protect children. "If we stand by as technology changes, we will leave police officers fighting crime with one hand tied behind their backs. She was keen to point out that the proposals do not include reading the content of websites, email or social networks. "Checking communication records, not content, is a crucial part of day-to-day policing and the fingerprinting of the modern age - we are determined to ensure its continued availability in cracking down on crime," she said. But Mr Killock argues that knowing where a citizen has been online is equally intrusive. Drawing a parallel he said: "If I'm having an affair then who I'm talking to is just as revealing as what I say," he said. Technically feasible The bill- an update to the controversial RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) legislation - lays out new duties for the UK communications companies. The new proposals would require ISPs to keep details of a much wider range of data including use of social network sites, webmail, voice calls over the internet, and gaming. Websites visited could be recorded, although pages within sites would not be. BT said that it was considering the proposals and would report back to the parliamentary committee in due course. The Internet Service Providers' Association said that it would be lobbying MPs in the coming months. "Ispa has concerns about the new powers to require network operators to capture and retain third party communications data," said a spokesman. "These concerns include the scope and proportionality, privacy and data protection implications and the technical feasibility. "Whilst we appreciate that technological developments mean that government is looking again at its communications data capabilities, it is important that powers are clear and contain sufficient safeguards," it added. The bill faces a tough ride through parliament with Lib Dem MPs and some Conservatives calling for it to be watered down or abandoned altogether. Trevor Pearce, director general of the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca), warned that any attempts to undermine the legislation would have a direct effect on policing. "Any significant reduction in the capability of law enforcement agencies to acquire and exploit intercept intelligence and evidential communications data would lead to more unsolved murders, more firearms on our streets, more successful robberies, more unresolved kidnaps, more harm from the use of class A drugs, more illegal immigration and more unsolved serious crime overall. "This would mean Soca, the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] and other agencies relying more heavily on more expensive, more risky and potentially more intrusive techniques to locate and apprehend offenders." Soca said that it uses communications data in 95% of the serious crime investigations it conducts. Your post. Doesn't say anything about monitoring everyone. We've moved on from that.
Webbo Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 We've moved on from that. She was keen to point out that the proposals do not include reading the content of websites, email or social networks.
Rincewind Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 There still has to be evidence before it gets to court. The majority won't get a second glance and the few may be known for other offences.
MooseBreath Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 Bit silly? Real life stalkers can be seen and identified to the police. You've still got a victim of a crime that could have been prevented by the solution I proposed, so what do you say to the victim?
Webbo Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 Also, are we sure we are talking about the same law? The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, Civil liberty groups and ISPs have voiced concerns over the newly-published draft communications bill.
Webbo Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 You've still got a victim of a crime that could have been prevented by the solution I proposed, so what do you say to the victim? You really are being ridiculous.
davieG Posted 15 June 2012 Author Posted 15 June 2012 The title was changed because someone added a post about another snooping law.
MooseBreath Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 You really are being ridiculous. Couldn't agree more. Applying the snooping charter to real life shows how ridiculous it is.
Daggers Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 You reckon?It's all about perception I suppose. Have you answered my points? No. Have you responded to my simple question? No. Have you offered any evidence supporting this law and countering my points? No. Having your eyes shut and your hands over your ears is going to limit your perception somewhat. You call Moosey ridiculous? At least he understands the limitations of the proposals unlike the three of you regurgitating a Mail column.
Webbo Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 Whatever, I'm bored of this now. You think sad loners should be allowed to destroy peoples lives with impunity, I don't. England have won and I'm happy.
1964FOX Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 Have you answered my points? No Have you responded to my simple question? No. Have you offered any evidence supporting this law and countering my points? No. Having your eyes shut and your hands over your ears is going to limit your perception somewhat. You call Moosey ridiculous? At least he understands the limitations of the proposals unlike the three of you regurgitating a Mail column. Have you proven this will be an infringement on civil liberties? No. Have you proven that this will be used to snoop on the general public? No. will you continue to ask us to prove our point without providing any evidence that supports your opinion? yes.
Rincewind Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 Well if nothing else it has diverted attention from other worrying issues that is around for the government. These measures to catch the people have mostly been around for a while anyway but by saying they are going to do Y when they have had X in place already which is just as good but rarely used so they will call it Y and do X and Joe public will jump for joy after seeing the results in the daily M shouting I knew I was right to vote right. What a great job the two C's running the country are doing and funning it up for all. I'm sure you will all agree.
MooseBreath Posted 15 June 2012 Posted 15 June 2012 Well this is exactly the kind of thing that the left wing liberal democrats should be fiercely protesting about. The fact that they aren't is a fine example of how flimsy, lacking in genuine conviction and generally full of odious, detestable crap the left wing are when it actually comes to doing something rather than just fantasising about impossible ideals. Can't wait for those unelected cvnts to **** off back to Starbucks hopefully never to be heard from again.
Zingari Posted 16 June 2012 Posted 16 June 2012 Have you proven this will be an infringement on civil liberties? No. Have you proven that this will be used to snoop on the general public? No. will you continue to ask us to prove our point without providing any evidence that supports your opinion? yes. Maybe that conspiracy theorising lefty rag the Daily Mail can answer your questions. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2159336/Who-calling-conspiracy-theorist-Home-Secretary.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
davieG Posted 16 June 2012 Author Posted 16 June 2012 Spammers swamp UK government's data.gov website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18457106
skinnydipper Posted 16 June 2012 Posted 16 June 2012 Headline: Daggers Gives Tory Boys A Pasting Tabloid Edition: Lefties exposed in early morning reach-round shocka !!!!
Webbo Posted 16 June 2012 Posted 16 June 2012 Maybe that conspiracy theorising lefty rag the Daily Mail can answer your questions. http://www.dailymail...o=feeds-newsxml That can't be true, I get all my opinions out of the Daily Mail, I've been told.
ADK Posted 16 June 2012 Posted 16 June 2012 Its not a left/right issue its an issue of civil liberty.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.